51ÁÔÆæ

Management evaluation: the requirement of filing a request for management evaluation prior to submitting an application before the Tribunal has been invariably upheld by the Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to either waive the deadlines for the filing of requests for management evaluation with the MEU or make any exception to it; therefore, the Tribunal is incompetent to review decisions which have not been subjected to management evaluation. Technical bodies: as per staff rule 11.2(b), technical bodies are determined by the Secretary-General. Absent such determination...

Formal requirements: It is justified to request a complainant to conform to the requirements of format and content of secs. 5.11 and 5.13 of ST/SGB/2008/5. However, as a matter of fairness, the same degree of exigency must be required from the different complainants. Purpose and material scope of ST/SGB/2008/5: ST/SGB/2008/5 was promulgated to address very specific kinds of conduct, defined in its sec. 1. Re-characterizing allegations of a different nature and having them investigated under the bulletin is a misuse of the procedure. Investigating a complaint and its counter-complaint together...

Scope and standard of review Although the Applicant raised a number of arguments related to the non-renewal of his fixed-term appointment and seeks remedies consequent to this decision, the decision not to renew the Applicant¡¯s fixed-term appointment is not properly put before the Tribunal and does not fall within the ambit of the judicial review in the present case. In any event, the Applicant is time-barred from challenging his separation from service. He was separated from service on 28 July 2014 and he did not submit a request for management evaluation of that decision within the 60-day...

Discretion of investigators: Duly authorised investigators have a discretion to determine the information that they deem relevant to gather and probe further. However, such discretion is not unfettered. Investigations must be conducted in a fair, balanced and impartial manner.

Admissibility and value of evidence: Circumstantial evidence, as well as hearsay, are admissible in the Organization¡¯s internal justice system. However, their probative value is more limited than that of direct evidence. Mere statements of witnesses holding that the Applicant had engaged in other instances in behavior...

It is unequivocally incumbent upon the Organization to provide anyone who files a complaint with a properly reasoned decision, especially when the complaint is being rejected. This also enables the staff member to promptly exercise other available options including a challenge to that decision. Endless email communications do not provide staff members with finality of a determination, thus placing them in a precarious situation if they are to challenge such a decision taking note of statutory time-limits.; This Tribunal found that the decision of the former UNICEF Representative PCO not to...

The established facts considered in their entirety amount to misconduct in the form of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can manifest itself in different forms, its determination is fact specific, and its occurrence is not limited to work places during work hours. The Applicant¡¯s conduct amounts to sexual harassment in violation of staff rule 1.2(f). A plain reading of the Applicant¡¯s Facebook messages shows their sexual nature. Moreover, in the Tribunal¡¯s view, the Applicant was put on notice that his sexual advances were unwelcome by Ms. X¡¯s text message in July 2012 requesting that he...

Noting that there is nothing in the strict interpretation of section 1.2 of ST/SGB/2008/5 to exclude a series of discrete acts performed by more than a single individual from constituting prohibited conduct for which the Organization bears responsibility, the Tribunal found that the Applicant¡¯s allegations of institutionally enabled, or tolerated, harassment did not relate to one off incidents. Under ST/SGB/2008/5, the ES¡¯s duty was to examine the complaint in its entirety to see whether it raised issues of prohibited conduct to which the Applicant may have still been suffering from. Instead...

The application was deemed premature because the Applicant failed to request management evaluation of the impugned decision.

The Tribunal accepts the motion to withdraw the application on the terms requested. The parties are to be praised for the approach taken in this matter. The Tribunal, on its own motion, decided to anonymize this judgment considering that since the matter was amicably resolved, it was not appropriate for the Applicant¡¯s name to be disclosed in a public document. The Applicant¡¯s motion to withdraw the application is granted and this case is hereby closed, with, as requested, no right of reinstatement.

Neither the intial placement of the Applicant on ALWOP nor any of its extensions could be separated; each extension of the same ALWOP decision triggered a challenge; of all the previous related decisions. The challenge of any extension of the ALWOP was a challenge of the entire continuum of ALWOP, previous or supsequent. The placement of the Applicant on ALWOP fell below the required threshold for the Respondent/decision-maker to show that exceptional circumstances existed to support it. It was unjust and unlawful to place the Applicant on ALWOP for twelve consecutive months. UNDT ordered the...